How is 'not accepting the act' a true acceptance of homosexuality?

[Ponder This]

For one, emotional fulfillment is essential to most people's happiness. They aren't asexual. Funny, that's the point I've seen not touched at all in responses to my OP.

'Emotional fulfillment is essential to most people's happiness' doesn't seem to be making homosexuality out to be anything different from heterosexuality or anything else that a person desires (that will bring happiness).

Do you mean that a person can still be happy while not eating pork, but a person cannot still be happy if they never have sex? What do you mean by 'fulfillment'?

Doesn't mean it is reasonable to do. Besides, that wouldn't show anything about rather homosexuality is sinful, or shouldn't be acted on.

Okay, so it isn't just the restriction of homosexual acts, but the restriction of any sexual act that is intolerant. In other words, homosexual acts are not different somehow from other sexual acts (or restrictions) that prevent a person from achieving o- 'emotional fulfillment'.

Think whatever you want. I'm not going to be cross-examined. Let's continue, shall we?

So let's move things along... You are saying religions that place restrictions on sexual activities are intolerant. We agree, but-

More than that, you are saying that the restrictions prevent an essential 'emotional' need from being 'fulfilled'. You need to clarify that point, but let's just fast track it and suppose that you are right: some people just cannot be happy in this world until they've committed a desired sexual act.

Does it follow that, the religions that have these restrictions on sexual actions need to change to accommodate the truth as you see it? Is it not enough that people who don't want to live under these restrictions choose not to practice these religions?

I don't see how the greater good of society isn't enough, but let's knock it up a few more notches if that isn't convincing.

Are Christians obligated to care about truth? Their claims would certainly have us think so. What if everything I've said about homosexuals is the truth, which I see no reason to accept isn't?

They are then not only oppressing a group of people unjustly, but they arguably don't care about truth.

No, absolutely not. You do not get to dictate what others must believe because you are 'right' and they are 'wrong' but your arguments failed to convince. If their religion is voluntary (and the Christian religion is), you do not get a free pass to deliver your oppression. The sword cuts both ways.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And there are certainly subgroups within Christianity that treat LGBT+ with the same fairness and love that they might have towards their own heterosexuals. But that, quite simply, isn't the mainstream stance.

I believe it is; as with all things, the dissent that we hear is merely the loudest.

Heterosexual sex outside of marriage may be technically discouraged by most Christian groups, but it certainly exists and is often met with various degrees of acceptance and even lenience.

Extramarital sex can lead to ostracization, denial of sacraments (including the eucharist), dis-fellowship, and almost always a mess of social shame and preaching against.

But again, (and this may have been missed the first several times I said it) I'm not talking about harmful actions taken against others. I am talking about their opinions and beliefs regarding homosexuality why should they change?

The opinion would be fine in a vaccuum.

Ah, we might be getting somewhere. See, here's the problem; fighting discrimination is great. If people are putting belief into action and that action is actually harmful, then by all means socially object and protest away. Only as we see so very often from The Left is that stopping action isn't enough, they have to set out to change those opinions. This is plainly wrong. If someone wants to believe that homosexuality is icky, sinful, whatever, that is their right. And here's the thing about discrimination; everyone does it. Even those on the Left claiming to be championing for Underdog Rights. And just as everyone else, they ought be called on it.

 

[loverofhumanity]

My premise for this question stems from the fact that most human beings are not asexual and need fulfillment from a relationship as a part of life.

There are among the religions of the world and their sects, a view that homosexuality can be accepted- just not acting on it.

My view is that this is only half-hearted and incomplete, given that homosexuals are going to reasonably want romantic fulfillment like any heterosexual does- in a partnership with a mate.

If a homosexual embraces said worldview that doesn't accept 'the act'- they're going to be fighting against themselves, which is exactly the same as if the religion were actually calling it a sin.

In either case, a homosexual must fight against themselves according to certain religions and/or sects.

I am not convinced that this half-hearted acceptance of homosexuals still requiring them to fight against any desire for fulfillment with a mate is actually too accepting.

I think it is still cruel to homosexuals, and that is my position on the subject.

What makes accepting homosexuals, but not accepting 'the act'- an actual acceptance of gay people?

Our religion only endorses sexual relations between a married man and woman.

“Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.”

(Universal House of Justice)

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It has been previously explained about the Twofold Station of the Messengers of God.

The Unchangeable and Changeable aspects. Thus It is a deception to quote only one aspect as the Bahai view

I think it's deception to act as though change can be not actual change because of theological maneuvering.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Our religion only endorses sexual relations between a married man and woman.

“Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality center on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.”

(Universal House of Justice)

Yes I'm aware of that. I happen to think it's a sad departure from your faith's usual tolerance and acceptance of people.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

One who freely chooses to join such a religion, sure. In which case its their choice and their agency, which I would not want to rob from them. I don't see the problem unless this theoretical religion is imposed on others.

I already stated two issues that make it impossible to act as though personal choice in religion was free from greater social consequences.

Ick, please don't reduce sexual identity down to just acts of sex.

Do you think the identity MUST exclude sex? If you do, we aren't talking about a sexual identity, but a belief about being something.

Statements like this come dangerously close to portraying GLB people as sluts without the ability of self-control. Just saying.

That's your interpretation. I'm simply saying that LGBT people are not asexual in the majority, so will want to seek an emotional bond with another person of their orientation. If to you that sounds like I'm arguing for LGBT people being 'sluts', that's YOUR problem.

People promoting homophobia and transphobia with religion effects not only those in the religion but without, by influencing society. It promotes discrimination up to violence against LGBT people. So it is in the best interest of society and especially for the safety and well-being of LGBT people if they stop promoting such bigotry.

Exactly. That's why it isn't merely a 'private choice' to discriminate in any circumstances.

One law from God is not to murder, would it be discrimination if we decided to implement that as Law?

What does murder have to do with it?

I think you are taking a particularly rigid view of monotheism and extrapolating it towards, as you call it, "all faiths".

Yep. That's one of my major issues with Baha'i. They don't leave other worldviews out of it. They try to pull them all into their circle, which is to say the least: worrying, when one's organization has global theocratic ambitions.

'Emotional fulfillment is essential to most people's happiness' doesn't seem to be making homosexuality out to be anything different from heterosexuality or anything else that a person desires

Except that it is inseparable from being homosexual to feel attraction for the same sex. Most homosexuals are going to want to act on that attraction. That is not separate from who they are and how they're oriented.

Do you mean that a person can still be happy while not eating pork, but a person cannot still be happy if they never have sex?

These are not related. This is almost like a non-sequitur.

What do you mean by 'fulfillment'?

I already defined 'what I mean' by fulfillment. I'm not playing this game.

Okay, so it isn't just the restriction of homosexual acts, but the restriction of any sexual act that is intolerant.

How do you figure that?

some people just cannot be happy in this world until they've committed a desired sexual act.

Some people can't. Is that wrong?

No, absolutely not. You do not get to dictate what others must believe because you are 'right' and they are 'wrong' but your arguments failed to convince.

I wasn't dictating. I was asking a theoretical question.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I think it's deception to act as though change can be not actual change because of theological maneuvering.

It is your choice to try to understand what is written, or stay with your own thoughts.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

What does murder have to do with it?

Gods Laws are all recorded. If we choose to dump one, to pursue our own worldly path, thinking this is a greater path than Gods Laws, then the same decision can be made for all the Laws.

Plain and simple, follow Gods Laws or not to. If you want to practice a Faith, then the Laws are to be implemented. this will not always be overnight and God knows our heart and will guide our sincere efforts.

Regards Tony

 

[Buddha Dharma]

It is your choice to try to understand what is written, or stay with your own thoughts.

Regards Tony

Wow what an interesting way of wording it. My choice to 'try to understand' OR 'stay with my own thoughts'. Isn't that how one tries to understand? Or do you think I decided I didn't agree with the Baha'i view in an instant and tossed it?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Yes I'm aware of that. I happen to think it's a sad departure from your faith's usual tolerance and acceptance of people.

It could be the other way around.

Gods Laws are the bigger picture, they are the elixir to true life. Thus if we break a law the spiritual consequences have ripples through eternity.

There is no intolerance shown to anybody that has homosexual tendencies or thoughts. They are Loved and embraced as is any other person on this planet. If they find Baha'u'llah they are made aware of the Laws and it becomes their choice to pursue the wisdom as to why this Law has been made, there is a lot of Writings and guidance given.

When a person finds a balance with Gods Laws and starts living them in their lives, doors of further understanding are opened and we find that what was once a big issue, fades to nothing.

Regards Tony

 

[Buddha Dharma]

There is no intolerance shown to anybody that has homosexual tendencies or thoughts. They are Loved and embraced as is any other person on this planet. If they find Baha'u'llah they are made aware of the Laws and it becomes their choice to pursue the wisdom as to why this Law has been made, there is a lot of Writings and guidance given.

Right, so what happens if they decide they want to seek fulfillment in a same-sex relationship? What happens if they find themselves really wanting that? Is that tolerated? If they do so?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Wow what an interesting way of wording it. My choice to 'try to understand' OR 'stay with my own thoughts'. Isn't that how one tries to understand? Or do you think I decided I didn't agree with the Baha'i view in an instant and tossed it?

This issue goes to the core of Faith, it is something that took me 30 years to begin to grasp. You dismissed it as an intolerance, but in a Baha'i mind it is far from intolerance.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Right, so what happens if they decide they want to seek fulfillment in a same-sex relationship? What happens if they find themselves really wanting that? Is that tolerated? If they do so?

If they have become a Baha'i, then they know that it is forbidden, they know the penalty, they make the choice.

If they are not Baha'i then a Baha'i will always be there with them, supporting them as they live their life.

I do have a Son that has chosen this path.

Regards Tony

 

[Buddha Dharma]

If they have become a Baha'i, then they know that it is forbidden, they know the penalty, they make the choice.

Do you understand why someone may see that as intolerant?

If they are not Baha'i then a Baha'i will always be there with them, supporting them as they live their life.

I do have a Son that has chosen this path.

Well I am glad you're tolerant toward non-Baha'i LGBT people. I also didn't know you had a son that is LGBT. I won't ask about your relationship. It's not my business.

Whatever disagreements we may have- I am glad you support LGBT people to the degree you believe you're allowed.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you understand why someone may see that as intolerant?

Yes - It ties into understanding the importance of Gods Laws, that is why I made the comment you said Wow to.

What a lot do not consider is that is but One Law in God Faiths. If I give 5 other Laws, would one say it is intolerant if people do not choose to follow them, or can we see it as it is, their choice?

No Alcohol
No Drugs (Exemption if prescribed by Medical)
100% Chasity before Marriage.
Obligatory Prayer
Fasting.

When we accept Faith, we accept the whole package, or we really have not accepted the Faith. This is what I have found in my Journey. One may say they have a Faith, but do they really live it as it should be and that takes strong Faith.

Regards Tony

 

[Buddha Dharma]

What a lot do not consider is that is but One Law in God Faiths

As I stated in another thread: I think talking about all faiths in the way Baha'is do has it's problems. Furthermore, you listed no alcohol. Neither Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity prohibit alcohol. There's no indication they ever did.

If I give 5 other Laws, would one say it is intolerant if people do not choose to follow them, or can we see it as it is, their choice?

With all respect, I think people would see how homosexuality doesn't relate to some of these issues, and if we only have the word of someone claiming they speak for God- that may not be too convincing.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

As I stated in another thread: I think talking about all faiths in the way Baha'is do has it's problems. Furthermore, you listed no alcohol. Neither Judaism, Hinduism, or Christianity prohibit alcohol. There's no indication they ever did.

With all respect, I think people would see how homosexuality doesn't relate to some of these issues, and if we only have the word of someone claiming they speak for God- that may not be too convincing.

Yes it is in our own heart we have to weigh all these things.

Regards Tony

 

[loverofhumanity]

Yes I'm aware of that. I happen to think it's a sad departure from your faith's usual tolerance and acceptance of people.

I’m sorry you feel that way but in centuries gone by humanity has adopted various strong stances which have proven to be wrong such as the Church’s opposition to science as witchcraft and of the devil and concepts like the world was flat.

These beliefs were both widely and strongly held only to eventually wither away after future knowledge exposed their incorrectedness. The same today I believe can be said for homosexuality I believe. The future alone will reveal that we have made an error of judgement in believing it to be normal and then we will be more open to try and remedy it but now anyone who says it’s not normal are judged as intolerant and this is to be expected until more knowledge comes to light.

People feel strongly on these issues but we maintain that infallible knowledge comes only from a Buddha or a Christ and that Baha’u’llah has defined homosexuality very clearly as an aberration.

 

[Vinayaka]

and if we only have the word of someone claiming they speak for God- that may not be too convincing.

You're being polite. It's not convincing AT ALL.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I’m sorry you feel that way but in centuries gone by humanity has adopted various strong stances which have proven to be wrong such as the Church’s opposition to science as witchcraft and of the devil and concepts like the world was flat.

These beliefs were both widely and strongly held only to eventually wither away after future knowledge exposed their incorrectedness. The same today I believe can be said for homosexuality I believe. The future alone will reveal that we have made an error of judgement in believing it to be normal and then we will be more open to try and remedy it but now anyone who says it’s not normal are judged as intolerant and this is to be expected until more knowledge comes to light.

People feel strongly on these issues but we maintain that infallible knowledge comes only from a Buddha or a Christ and that Baha’u’llah has defined homosexuality very clearly as an aberration.

No, homosexuality is not going to be shown to be harmful in the future. Get over it. You have an incorrect view of the relationship between the Church and science, too. The Church was the main patron of the sciences for centuries in the West.